Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (→numbers in the example for the task (deprecated): added another comment to an (almost) dead section.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 49:
::: And also, it doesn't show the transitions involving the prime number 3 and the number 5. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
::: True. I didn't mention 3 because (a) its transitions are already covered in the other two, and (2) the digit 3 shows up in the pascal and rexx tables, so it's not as obvious of a statement. (If you make 2 and 5 show up, you'd have to fix the omission of 3 as well). Anyways, I guess the point is that there's an error there that should probably be fixed sooner or later? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
| |||